The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Kuwait

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Changes in the Middle East – 10 March 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the changes in the Middle East, made in a television interview on 10th March 2011.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think what’s happening is world changing. I think this is as big an event as the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 80s and early 90s. It’s that big and it’s going to have very far reaching ramifications. And some of the most interesting factors are what has not happened. For twenty years we have worried about Islamist influence and over-throwing governments and militant Islamist governments in the Middle East.

    And what has actually happened has been a grass-roots revolution led by young people, inspired by the Internet and Facebook and the social networks, and satellite television, and against political and economic matters. There’s been no flag burning, no Islamist significance. Indeed terror bodies such as Al-Qaeda seem almost irrelevant and may seem so in the future.

    Why should people join terror groups, if peaceful action by a mass population can change governments in the way we have seen.

    So I think there a lot of very long-term implications of what has happened that we haven’t begun to examine.

    [Sir John Major was asked about the 80s and 90s and whether the Kuwaiti Royal Family should be concerned]

    I think down the Gulf the circumstances will probably stay pretty much as they are, except I think there will be reforms. Reforms have been promised in a number of countries, I think they will take place. There may be changes of Ministerial personnel, there will be reforms. Their Parliaments perhaps will get more power.

    So I think perhaps the Gulf is a little separate from elsewhere. What may be a bigger difference is the implication on the whole region over the next few years. The extent to which the Arab identity, the instinct of Arab nationalism rather than Islamism actually becomes embedded.
    We can’t be certain how that will pan out yet, but it will change, we can be certain of that. And when this has bedded down in the next five or ten years, the world will look different in the way it looks today.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council Dinner – 13 July 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council Dinner, held at Chelsea Manor Street in London, on Tuesday 13th July 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    “Policy challenges in a changing world” – is a good topic.

    The inevitable challenge is change, which is brutally swift. Leaders of only a few years ago now seem distant history.

    One was Boris Yeltsin. I once asked Boris to tell me – “State of Russia” in one word. “Good” – “Not good”.

    Today, economically, we’re passing through in a “not good” phase.

    And, politically, although the world is safer from serious war than for decades, we face some intractable problems.

    The phrase “War on Terror” conjures up its own image: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, suicide bombers. And yet – the term is misleading. What we are facing is not really a “War”, still less on “Terrorism”, but the military fall-out from the chaos of failed, or failing, States and the battle between Muslims for the soul of Islam. This is not a short-term conflict, nor one capable of a clear-cut finite ending: the chaos is complex.

    Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will have a clear cut ending – or an early one.

    We need to understand the Muslim world is very different to our society. It embraces nations in which references to the Prophet Mohammed, or the Old and New Testaments, are part of everyday conversation.

    For some – the Salafists – Islam was perfect when founded and can neither be changed nor improved upon. Policy needs to understand the tensions between Christian, Muslim and Jew; Arab, Persian, Kurd and Turk; Shia and Sunni; between Monarchies and Republics; Secular and Islamic societies.

    It is a cauldron. It is not a liberal democracy. And therein lies reality.

    Let me turn to particular conflicts.

    Firstly, Iraq.

    When Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990 the case for war was clear-cut. An innocent country was invaded and needed liberation.

    The second Iraq War was very different.

    Before it began, I made my reservations public but supported the war – because I believed what the then Prime Minister told us about weapons of mass destruction. When I was Prime Minister, everything I said in public was factually rock solid. I assumed that principle still applied. But I was wrong. It now seems there was little justification for the bellicose case for war that was presented. I was not alone in being misled. So was the Conservative Party. So was the United Kingdom.

    Today that war looks like folly. The defence of it has shrunk to the claim that Saddam Hussein was a bad man, who mistreated his nation, and the world is better off without him.

    That is true. But others are bad, too – and mistreat their nations – yet we don’t invade their countries or bomb them from 30,000 feet. It may be that the Labour Government acted in good faith. Judgement on that can be left to history.

    But, I observe now – there are lessons: war should be the last resort, entered into only when circumstances compel it. And secondly: we now have on-going responsibilities to help rebuild Iraq that we cannot ignore.

    Afghanistan

    We have now been at war in Afghanistan for eight years – with no sign of an ending. Inevitably there is war weariness – made worse by the depressing rise in casualties.

    Afghanistan isn’t a war that can easily be “won”, but nor can it be ignored: we are bound to it by necessity.

    And it is easy to see why.

    The war has spread into Pakistan – a Western ally and a nuclear power where Taleban and Jihadist influence has been growing.

    The Afghanistan campaign is now, arguably, not one, but several intertwined conflicts including a power struggle between Jihadists and the Pakistan Government.

    As the conflict becomes more messy and intractable, it is understandable that some feel we should bring the troops home – as Canada and the Netherlands plan to do in 2011.

    But not yet. Too much is at stake. We need patience and commitment for what could yet be a long military and civil campaign: the alternative is to lose the struggle, boost terror, undermine American and British prestige, and place Pakistan at risk. We did not seek this war, but we cannot – either morally or safely – walk away from it.

    The best exit strategy is victory. If that is unobtainable – diplomacy. We may yet have to talk to the Taliban.

    Iran

    Churchill once referred to Russia as “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”.

    Much the same could be said of Iran today. In the year since the flawed re election of Ahmadinejad, there has been widespread internal dissent by hundreds of thousands of individual Iranians. There have been marches, coded speeches, intellectual dissent, as liberty has raised its voice. The regime has responded with repression but, like others before them, they will find that the demand for change, for something better, for a free and open society, is impossible to smother forever. You cannot arrest freedom and keep it in jail.

    The fear of a nuclear Iran is real. If she obtains a weapon, the risk of proliferation is high.

    Why is Iran doing this? The economy is in a mess. The currency is weak. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment are high. It’s a sad comedown for a nation that was a great Empire, when we lived in mud huts.

    Nothing is explicable without understanding that Iran is a nationalist and hard-line regime. The real source of power is the Supreme Leader, backed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Army, the Intelligence Services and the Police. The President, Ahmadinejad – so often the face of Iran – is a secondary figure. He is not the decisive decision-maker. Too many people over-react to his provocative remarks without realising his subordinate position. He is the Apprentice, not the Sorcerer.

    What should we do? First, remember the regime is not the nation – as the internal dissent vividly makes clear. Even so, while the clerical regime survives, we must deal with it. It is possible negotiations may improve relations; and we should continue to try. But, because of the threat she poses, we must supplement dialogue with incentives and sanctions.

    In any event, adding a third military conflict after Iraq and Afghanistan is very unattractive – even if we cannot rule it out. But, for the time being, the sanctions applied last month seem the right way forward. We can only hope they prove sufficient.

    Arab-Israel

    The Arab/Israeli dispute colours the view of the Middle East. It spills beyond its own borders and has scarred politics for decades. And is it not absurd that we know the two-State solution we seek, but cannot turn it into reality? Morality, as well as practicality, says we need a solution.

    After several decades, a bilateral negotiated settlement is still far away: many wonder if it will ever be possible. Attempts at incremental agreements – “confidence building” in the jargon – have failed again and again. Peace negotiations resemble nothing so much as the mating of the Black Widow Spider. Once the dance is over, death and destruction inevitably follow. How often we have seen that, and how damaging it is.

    The present situation is close to stalemate. Palestinians are split. Secular Fatah control the West Bank. Islamic Hamas rule in Gaza. Hamas deny the right of Israel to even exist. They will not renounce violence nor accept previous agreements made by Palestinian negotiators.

    Is there a solution? Yes, of course – the obvious one, a negotiated settlement. But, if that cannot be achieved, if negotiators from Israel and the Palestinians cannot – or will not – make the concessions necessary to compromise, what then?

    Can the international community allow this dispute to run on and on forever – or will the time come when they have no choice other than to press their own ideas for a settlement?

    Understandably, the protagonists would hate this: but, if both sides take positions that impede progress, what alternative exists?

    Will this be difficult? Of course it will. It is a gamble, a high risk toss of the coin, and one that requires great political courage, especially in

    Washington.

    Let me turn to some unconventional challenges.

    Firstly, science.

    The first integrated circuit – invented by Jack Kilby in America in 1958 – proved to be the fore-runner of silicon chips containing – literally – billions of microscopic circuit elements. Nothing in the 20th century has so accelerated change; it led to the computer revolution; to the Digital Age.

    Without that circuit there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptop; no Google; no iPods; no Blackberrys, no PlayStations – and none of the hundreds of millions of jobs they have created. Who knows what challenges lie ahead – perhaps as a result of the particle beams circulating in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

    As science changes how we live, medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, medicine has given birth to whole new industries. New technologies are delivering better drugs, healthy food, new pesticides, the control of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.

    Technology and medicine are old partners. The first man to assert that blood circulates and is pumped from the heart was William Harvey.

    But not until the invention of the microscope in the 1650s was this verified by the discovery of the tiny connections between arteries and veins.

    In a modern parallel, scientists are examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research so they can target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.

    Such science is leading a revolution in medical care: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for sufferers of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Soon, fantasy will become reality, with commercial challenges that are simply staggering.

    Many challenges also offer opportunities. At the birth of Christ, world population was – probably – 300 million. By 1900 – 19 centuries later – it had grown by something over one billion. We now grow by nearly one billion every decade.

    World population is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050. This is like absorbing two more nations the size of China. It offers social threats and economic opportunities.

    These are just a few of the challenges in our post recession world.

    One certainty: many countries borrowing money – from markets, one another, International Financial Institutions. Not always straightforward.

    Inevitably, there are many challenges I have not touched upon: the danger of nuclear or biological terrorism; the insecurities created by the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan; the enigma of Russian policy-making.

    All are formidable – but let me add a little balance: pre-financial crisis, fifteen years of high growth improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.

    Investment across nations minimises the risk of wars. Life expectancy is rising.

    China and the US have developed a peaceful relationship. Japan and China are repairing old scars. Democracy is expanding. Poor, forgotten Africa is growing. Europe has moved the free market eastwards and southwards.

    In a preface to some famous essays, an English philosopher flatteringly observed to his patron that “You have planted things that are likely to last”.

    So have we – in our own time. The Free Market. The Global Market. Democracy. A Union across Europe. The concept of supra-national co-operation. All gifts from the West to the world – with the UK as a principal donor.

    It is a record of which to be proud.

    But what remains to be achieved is greater yet, and the challenges will go on and on.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Iraq – 19 February 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s article on Iraq, published in House Magazine on 19th February 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    It looks like war but it is not yet unavoidable: Saddam could back down or be deposed, or accept an offer of sanctuary although, sadly, none of these options is likely. President Bush could not – and will not – back down and, with one-quarter of the British Army committed, nor can Britain.

    It is a natural human emotion to oppose war but action against Iraq is not precipitate. Iraq has been ignoring the UN for twelve years and continues to do so despite clear knowledge of the consequences. She has chemical, biological and conventional weapons and has not shrunk from using chemical weapons on her own people. She is feared as a threat to stability in the region and may have links with terrorist organisations. The longer the delay in disarming her the greater her strength may become, not least in developing a nuclear capability: and if Saddam is seen to face down the most powerful nation in the world, his prestige in the Middle East will be given an enormous boost.

    If it does come to military action, the United States will win. Iraq, with her massive but ill-equipped Army, cannot withstand the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. The US spends more on defence than the next nine high spending nations added together – and such power is irresistible.

    But the fact that the US will prevail militarily is one of the few certainties that lie ahead. The danger of Saddam unrestrained is well understood but the short and long term risks in restraining him have had little public airing.

    But these risks are stark. In the short term, there is the dangerous situation that arises as Saddam is faced with a war he cannot win and the near-certainty that he will be deposed. This is very different from the Gulf War. Then, Iraq was to be evicted from Kuwait. Now, although Resolution 1441 does not specify regime change, it seems almost certain that Saddam and his Government will be removed from power unless they disarm voluntarily. Since, notwithstanding their defeat in the Gulf War, the regime has remained in power sustained by the Republican Guard and the feared Secret Police, the chance of them stealing away quietly seems an unlikely option. We must, therefore, presume that we may have an unstable and threatened man at bay: what may he do?

    At worst, there is the risk that Saddam, believing he has nothing to lose, will use all his arsenal in the forthcoming conflict including biological and chemical weapons. If so, what would be his target? It could be the invading Army. Or he could attack Saudi Arabia for being staunch allies of the US and as revenge for the Saudis’ financing of the Gulf War. Or, of course, his target could be Tel Aviv in order to draw Israel into the war in the hope of maximising Arab support. He will be likely to use conventional weapons to set alight the Iraqi oil wells in an attempt to maximise economic chaos. He would justify this latter act of destruction by deploying the populist but misguided view that the aim of the US is to control Iraqi oil. He may also seek to contaminate or set alight oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

    He might also leave as his legacy a gift of weapons of mass destruction to terror groups so that they might strike against the US and her allies for years to come. This, of course, assumes he has not already done so. None of these scenarios may come about but none dare be ignored.

    We must plan also for what may happen in Iraq itself once the immediate battle is over. There may well be chaos, near civil war, revenge taking and the onset of anarchy.

    At the end of the Gulf War in 1991, a Shi’ite uprising began and may do so again once US and other ground troops begin to get the upper hand. Such an uprising could even include Baghdad where there is a large Shia population. Last time, the strife was brutally put down by the Republican Guard. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of Shi’ites have been killed by Saddam’s regime. As a result, Shi’ites in the holy cities – Najaf, Basra, Karbala – have old scores to settle and will not be merciful to their Sunni enemies. The US and her allies may arrive as liberators but be compelled to remain as peace-keepers.

    The US may also have a task to keep Iraq as one entity since, as in 1991, there is a subliminal suspicion among many Arabs that one war aim might be to dismember it. This is not so but, were it to happen, it would inflame suspicion and hostility throughout the region. In the North, the Kurds could well manoeuvre for an independent Kurdistan, a long cherished aim. It is highly unlikely to come about – the US, Turkey and Iran will all oppose it – but the wily Kurds will be pushing for it and this may well add to the post war cocktail of chaos.

    And what happens post Saddam? What nature of Government is likely to take power? Another ‘strong man’ is unattractive for he may be as bad as Saddam. The US would have great difficulty in governing Iraq and, no doubt during a UN supervised interlude, there will be efforts to form a new Iraqi Government.

    This will not be easy and the replacement Government may not be benign: the concept of a Western style democracy can be dismissed. In practice, voting by clan would mean power would pass from the less-than-20% Sunni minority to the overwhelming Shi’ite majority. This would be bitterly resisted by both Sunnis and Kurds. Even if any new Government is dressed up in some form of regional representation and minority involvement, it would still be dominated by the Shi’a. We would awaken to a Shi’ite Iraq alongside a Shi’ite Iran which would harbour ambitions to dominate the Gulf. At first, their eyes would turn to the Shi’ite communities in Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The Gulf States would tremble and their tremors would reverberate throughout the region.

    The destruction of the whole hideous apparatus of Saddam’s regime has an aftermath with ramifications far beyond Iraq. It would be folly beyond belief to plan only for a swift and successful war followed by a smooth transfer of power. It may be not all these problems will arise – but some surely will. We must prepare for the many problems ahead for it would be ironic to win the war only to lose the peace.

    Yet if the US and Britain are to win the peace, they must win hearts and minds for their cause. This will not be easy. The cause is not popular in the Arab world and, unlike 1990/1, there is no Arab coalition for the war. There is little or no regional support for it either. Instead, there is resentment and suspicion of the motives of the US and Britain with many voices claiming the war to come has more to do with Imperialism and Oil than disarmament. Although these charges are unfounded and wrong, they are deeply felt and damaging. To help minimise opposition and build long term support, the US and Britain must have their plans ready for the reconstruction of a war damaged Iraq; for the renovation of her already-declining oil industry which they must make clear will be left in Iraqi hands; for the provision of food, water and medicine to a population that will be grievously short of all such necessities; and for dealing with an exodus of refugees to neighbouring countries.

    The advocates of war cite the need for Churchillian resolve for their enterprise – and they are right. But when the fighting is done, they will need another Churchillian virtue – magnanimity – or Iraq will sink into despair and the Moslem world will grow still further in hostility to the West. If that were to be the outcome it would be a calamitous setback in the war against terror.

    It may be easy to win the war: it will not be easy to win the peace.

  • PMQT – 29 November 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Maddock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Maddock: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his Government will treat any vote on reducing VAT on domestic fuel as an issue of confidence–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that VAT on fuel has been approved by the House on several occasions–I think from memory on four occasions. It was introduced two Budgets ago, and clearly it would be a very important vote if a fresh vote were manufactured on the issue. But it does not fall into the same category as the European Communities (Finance) Bill.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Gillan: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to listen to the interview yesterday with the chairman of Rentokil– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order. This is using very valuable time.

    Mrs. Gillan: The Opposition find one of the most successful businesses in the UK amusing. The company was awarded a most respected award in a Management Today survey last week. The chairman of Rentokil said that, in his experience, our low inflation, low costs and record exports were unprecedented. Is that not the real story and the background to today’s Budget statement?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that business men and business women around the country recognise that we have the best combination of economic circumstances for many years, and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is the background to the Budget. There is no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will sketch out further details shortly.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true, as some Back Benchers were saying this morning, that in exchange for their support last night they were offered by Ministers a referendum on further European integration?

    The Prime Minister: I made clear my views on that to the House in May, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary echoed those views only last Friday. They have not changed.

    Miss Emma Nicholson: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noted the visit of the Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait, and his colleagues? Would my right hon. Friend now like to endorse the integrity of Kuwait’s sovereign border and the need to keep Kuwait alone, intact and in power as a state?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do as my hon. Friend asks, and I think that that would be the overwhelming view of every hon. Member. Recently, when it seemed as though–yet again–the integrity of Kuwait’s border was threatened, British troops and aircraft were there to defend it. That would of course be the position were that to happen again.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister confirm that last year his Government spent £355 million on management consultants? Is he aware that such a sum of money would have paid every pensioners’ bill for VAT on fuel? Does the Prime Minister not feel that the time has come for his Government to get their priorities right and to put the needs of pensioners before the profits of City consultants?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, substantial sums of money have been made available to assist pensioners with their value added tax on fuel bills. Very large sums have been made available and there is no relationship between that expenditure and expenditure on management consultants to help improve the efficiency of the Government, to release resources, to keep taxes down and to help ensure that there is money available to assist pensioners and others.

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread disappointment that Norway will now not be alongside us in our battle against a federal Europe and a single currency? In view of the immensely strong ties that exist between our two nations, will he and the Government do their utmost to ensure the continuation of the European economic area, which is such a beneficial arrangement for Norway and the whole of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I am extremely sorry that the Norwegian people decided not to join, but of course we respect their decision in that. Norway would have been a net contributor to the European Union, and on many issues, but perhaps not all, it would have been a valuable ally for the British point of view in Europe. I am, however, delighted that Austria and the other EFTA states have decided to join.

     

    Q4. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Hodge: Now that he leads a minority Government, will the Prime Minister break the habit of a lifetime, stick to at least one of his election pledges and scrap the proposed rise in VAT on fuel?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will have heard me say just a few moments ago that the House had debated that matter on four separate occasions.

    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency alone hundreds of children from less well-off families benefit from the assisted places scheme? Is it not a shame that the Labour party wants to deprive children of that opportunity, especially when some in its leadership have had the benefit of a similar opportunity?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the assisted places scheme. The whole purpose of that scheme and, indeed, of the education reforms generally, is to give children opportunities that otherwise they would not have had. I regret very much that many of those opportunities seem to attract the opposition of the Labour party. One of the more distasteful sides of politics is seeing those who have climbed up the ladder of opportunity kicking it away from other people.

     

    Q5. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Rendel: What moral difference does the Prime Minister see between what we all agree is wrong–Members of this House accepting payment to ask questions–and a party which accepts payment from the tobacco industry in return for vetoing a ban on tobacco advertising?

    The Prime Minister: There is no relationship between the two facts.

    Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will remember the speech that he gave last Thursday at the staff college at Camberley. We know how well the students there received that speech. In it, he referred specifically to Bosnia and said that we could not impose peace on those who did not wish to accept it. He said that if we tried to do so we would leave many hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Will the Prime Minister give us all an assurance that those troops–British, French, Dutch and all the others who have served in Bosnia–will be our first priority and that, if need be, he will make sure that they come out of that mess safely?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to my hon. Friend that I reject totally some of the lurid and misplaced criticism of the United Nations protection forces that have been made in some American newspapers in the past few days. The protection forces in Bosnia are not a combat force; they were never intended to be a combat force; they are not equipped there to be combat force. They are there on a humanitarian mission, and that mission has saved the life of hundreds of thousands of Bosnians.

    I very much wish UNPROFOR to continue its humanitarian work, as long as it can do its job without there being unacceptable risks to the United Nations troops that are there. However, I have to say to the House that if the parties to the conflict make the humanitarian task of UNPROFOR impossible, if they intensify the war rather than seek a peaceful settlement, they could create the conditions in which the United Nations would have no choice but to withdraw. I do not wish that to happen, but I have to say to the House that that could happen.

     

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was first elected four years ago, he set himself the aim of creating a nation at ease with itself. In the light of last night, at which of the following does he think he has been more successful–creating a nation at ease with itself or creating a party at ease with itself? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to hon. Members on the Labour Benches for suggestions as to how I should reply to the question from an hon. Member on the Liberal Benches. Given the fact that one can find a different Liberal policy from each Liberal to the next, and a different Liberal policy from each door to the next, each street to the next and each constituency to the next, I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at his own party before he criticises mine.

    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent survey of every household in my constituency, more than 90 per cent. expressed themselves satisfied with the national health service? That is reflected in other surveys. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those newspapers that continually talk down one of the finest health services in the world?

    The Prime Minister: I will happily join my hon. Friend in that. There is no doubt about the affection for the national health service and, although we often hear a great deal of generalised criticism of it, that criticism tends not to come from the people who have just had treatment in the national health service. They tend to be very supportive of it, and rightly so, because of the treatment that it offers and the service that it gives.

     

    Q7. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me in congratulating Customs officers, including those based at Holyhead in my constituency, on their efforts to combat drug smuggling. Does he agree that those efforts would be severely damaged if reports are true that 4,000 Customs officers are to lose their jobs as a result of an announcement today? How will that equate with the fact that the Prime Minister has announced the war on drugs? Will it not blow a gaping hole in his policy?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the importance of the battle against drugs; hence the domestic and international initiatives that we have taken and the work set in train by the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. Whatever may happen to the budgets to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can assure him that the battle against drugs will not suffer.

    Sir Peter Emery: In welcoming Senator Dole to this country, will my right hon. Friend point out that the United States Congress has many friends on both sides of the House, but that that friendship has been built up by Members of Congress and of the Senate fully understanding the work of their allies?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly look forward to meeting Senator Dole tomorrow, and I know that he is also meeting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We have a wide range of matters to discuss, and I am sure that those discussions will be fruitful and productive.

     

    Q8. Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Anderson: Will the Prime Minister confirm reports that the President of the Board of Trade is looking again at the privatisation of the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should not be in any doubt that we think that the right decision, when we have a majority in the House, will be to privatise the Post Office.

    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving to the shareholders of privatised utilities greater powers to decide the salaries of their directors in advance, rather than reading about them months after the event?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion, which I shall be happy to consider.

     

    Q9. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. McKelvey: The Prime Minister appeared to be somewhat ambivalent on the question of a referendum on European Union affairs. Could we have a referendum in Scotland so that we can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the country how we wish to be governed?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that there was a referendum on that issue some years ago. The hon. Gentleman knows, and in their hearts most people know, that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament would be immensely damaging both for Scotland and for every other part of the United Kingdom. It may well be Labour party policy, and we shall test to what extent over the weeks ahead, but it is not a thought-out policy, it is not a policy in the interests of Scotland, or of the people of Scotland, and it is not a policy in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

  • PMQT – 25 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Agriculture Spending

    Q1. Mr. Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the discussions of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the level of agriculture spending in 1991.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The Agriculture Council is currently considering proposals to keep spending on the common agricultural policy in 1991 within the agricultural guidelines. I hope that the issue will be resolved before the meeting of the European Council.

    Mr. Taylor : Does the Prime Minister accept that, despite the brave battle that is being fought alone by Britain and Holland to maintain the legal limits that his predecessor fought hard to achieve, Brussels will inevitably find some device or accountancy fiddle to break through, as has happened before? As the agricultural policy is causing damage to taxpayers, consumers, the third world and, now, to farmers, and as we are suffering from an uncontrollable protection racket which is riddled with graft, will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to Brussels that it would strengthen the Economic Community and everyone else if agriculture were repatriated to individual member states?

    The Prime Minister : I confirm to my hon. Friend that we shall continue to insist that the guidelines are respected. I am not sure that it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to see the break-up and repatriation of the common agricultural policy. The danger I foresee is that separate national agricultural policies would lead to increased protectionism and considerable distortions of trade. I believe that our interest is best served in this area by common policies and by seeking to improve them. In essence, we need to win the match in Brussels, and that we shall seek to do.

    Mr. Cryer : It is outrageous that the British Government are allowing to continue a common agricultural policy that is costing every family in this country £16 a week as part of the policy of the Conservatives, who have handed over in 10 years more than £40 billion to the Common Market. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is time that the food mountains were made available to the starving nations of Africa and to help the Kurds? Instead of that, the CAP ensures that food is bought on the open market. Stocks continue to soar and the Prime Minister is doing nothing about it.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been in the forefront of the battle in the Community to impose guidelines and to prevent unnecessary agricultural production. The answer to his second point about food mountains being used to assist people in need is that I agree that whenever that can be done, it should be done.

    Mr. Colin Shepherd : In his consideration of United Kingdom agriculture within the context of the European Community, will my right hon. Friend continue to bear it in mind the remarkable contribution that has been made by agriculture to the rural economy? Will he also bear it in mind that farm incomes are now about half what they were two years ago and that the Samaritans have expressed grave concern about the increase in suicidal thought in the farming industry? Will he bear those points in mind at all stages because we must protect the foundation of our rural economy?

    The Prime Minister : I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to bear those matters in mind. He will know that some of the direct assistance that we have been able to give within the common agricultural policy has been aimed at areas like hill farming, where there are particular difficulties.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Hon. Members : No.

    Mr. Speaker : We had better have the answer.

    The Prime Minister : I made the mistake because of the tedious aspect of the regular questions that I am asked.

    This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will be having further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Adams : Has the Prime Minister seen the letter in today’s Evening Standard from the private secretary of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) which says that the Government’s new local tax is

    “not fair–grossly inequitable and hurtful”?

    The lady goes on to ask why she should pay more for a small, one-bedroomed flat on her own in one part of London than the entire family of the Secretary of State for the Environment will pay in his luscious home in the west end? What answer will the Prime Minister give to that lady?

    The Prime Minister : The answer that I will give to the lady is that she lives in one of the most expensive houses in London. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends need to make up their minds. They allege with one breath that the council tax will benefit the rich, who, they say, are Conservative voters, and with the next breath that it will hurt Conservative voters.

    Mr. Fry : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to examine the illustrative bills for the new council tax for those authorities where householders will pay substantially more than under the existing community charge for two people? Will he note, for example, that for the dearest house in Westminster, the tax will be less than for the cheapest house in Wellingborough? Whereas Westminster has benefited from large Government grants, Wellingborough has been penalised by loss of grants because it has traded profitably and passed the profits on to its charge payers. If I am to propose that the new tax is fair to my constituents will my right hon. Friend initiate an investigation without delay into Wellingborough’s position?

    The Prime Minister : If councils spend at the same standard spending assessment, they will pay the same in each band. That is the essential equity of the scheme that we have proposed. Over 70 per cent. of people will be gainers under the scheme that we have proposed. Where there are losers, there will be transitional protection and, for people on low incomes, the generous rebate scheme. That is by far the best deal that the ratepayer, the community charge payer, or in future the council taxpayer, has ever received.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree with the considered view of the Governor of the Bank of England, who recently testified that Britain’s deep and worsening recession is, in his words, “home grown”?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for he has asked me that question on previous occasions, I do not accept the proposition that the recession is home grown. There are a variety of causes of the downturn in world trade here and elsewhere and we cannot be immune from all those.

    Mr. Kinnock : Did not the Prime Minister notice the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England on the subject of the recession’s origins? He said that, while Britain

    “is in recession, Japan and Germany undeniably are not and our other EC partners”–

    [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to quote the Governor of the Bank of England, who is not yet a member of the Labour party. He said that, although the economies in the remainder of the European Community have slowed down, they are not in recession.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that that view is borne out by the International Monetary Fund and that Britain’s condition is the direct result of the Prime Minister’s policies? Why will he not accept his responsibility or, better still, take action to reverse the recession that he has caused?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had examined the matter more carefully, he would have seen that the United Kingdom is coming out of its economic difficulties, while other countries are still facing deepening difficulties. He might also have observed that we have been in a position, since joining the exchange rate mechanism, to make five cuts in interest rates–four in the past 10 weeks. At the same time, we have seen an appreciation, not a depreciation, in sterling.

    Mr. Kinnock : I wish that the Prime Minister’s optimism was well placed. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer testified to the Treasury Committee a few weeks ago, rather diffidently :

    “I think that there are cautious grounds for believing we, somewhere about the middle of this year, may begin to come out of recession”.

    The Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the International Monetary Fund and anyone else with eyes to see, and who is concerned about the condition of our economy, knows that the right hon. Gentleman has plunged Britain into deep recession. What will he do to combat the rises in unemployment and the depression of our economy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, who has policies for a minimum wage that will create another million unemployed, has nothing to say about that. With interest rates and inflation having fallen and being set to fall significantly further, and with a balance of trade gap narrowing, it is difficult even for the right hon. Gentleman to deny the improvements now coming about.

    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : In the course of his busy day, might my right hon. Friend find a moment to visit the organ transplant exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall? If he does so, he will be told that there are 5,000 people awaiting transplants in this country and that current organ donation must double to meet that demand. In those circumstances, will it be possible to include an item on organ transplantation and the increase in the programme at the weekend meeting at Chequers that my right hon. Friend is having with health service managers?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that, at my weekend meeting in Chequers, I shall be able to discuss with health professionals a wide range of matters and I shall endeavour to include that subject among them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Mullin : Is the Prime Minister aware that last year, in a secret ballot supervised by the Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the employees of the North of England building society voted by 257 to 81 to join the Banking Insurance and Finance Union? The response of the management was to embark upon a programme of intimidation designed to get employees to resign from that union. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy that employers as well as employees should be bound by the outcome of properly conducted secret ballots? Or am I being naive?

    The Prime Minister : I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being naive. The strict answer to the first part of his question is that I was not aware of that incident. However, if it is as he describes, I can confirm that both sides should be bound by the agreement.

     

    Q4. Mr. Arbuthnot : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Arbuthnot : What would happen to the figures produced for the local council tax if we were to abolish capping and competitive tendering, and raise a higher proportion of local funding from local taxes–the policies of the Labour party? Would the figures, like those in the Labour party’s unfair rates proposals, go through the roof?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about what would happen to council tax bills under Labour’s proposals–that is precisely why the figures that it has produced are wholly bogus.

     

    Refugees (Kuwait)

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards receiving ecological refugees from Kuwait and surrounding countries into the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : All applications for entry to the United Kingdom are individually considered against the requirements of the immigration rules and in the light of compassionate considerations outside the rules.

    Mr. Dalyell : Are not thousands of Kuwaitis now taking residence in countries as far away from the photochemical smog and respiratory diseases as they can, and is not the root of the problem that, frankly, Kuwait is so paralysed that Kuwaitis cannot tackle the oil inferno? In those circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider the advice from the Saudi sources that I have named that, with the Americans and the Saudis, we should step in and tackle the oil fires, as we did with operation Desert Storm?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point that he wished to raise. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government are treating the matter of the oil well fires in Kuwait very seriously. The United Kingdom industry, together with officials from both the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, are examining how best to contribute to the resolution of the problems faced in Kuwait. A number of possibilities have been identified and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will tomorrow lead a delegation of key British industrialists to Kuwait to pursue the specific proposals that have already been put to the Kuwaiti Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 March 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Summerson : To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty’s Government will urge the United Nations to implement its resolutions that the people of Kashmir should be given the right of self-determination.

    The Prime Minister : United Nations resolutions on Kashmir over 40 years ago were concerned with the accession to India or Pakistan of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Government consider that any proposal to resolve the continuing dispute over the status of Kashmir needs to take account of subsequent developments, and to be mutually agreed between the Governments of India and Pakistan.

     

    President Gorbachev

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed at his meeting with President Gorbachev.

    The Prime Minister : The main subjects we discussed were the middle east, arms control, the Baltic states, the progress of political and economic reform in the Soviet Union and bilateral relations.

     

    Kuwait

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will consult the United Kingdom Institute of Waste Management on the methods of reclamation of building rubble for the reconstruction of Kuwait.

    The Prime Minister : The institute would be advised to register with the Department of Trade and Industry’s Kuwait reconstruction database so that United Kingdom expertise in this field can be made available to the Kuwaiti authorities.

     

    Nuclear and Chemical Weapons

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 March, Official Report, column 1094, to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), if he will list in the Official Report those forums and institutions at which he intends to take up the matter of the export of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O’Neill) on 6 March 1991.

     

    Moscow

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister which organisations he met during his recent visit to Moscow.

    The Prime Minister : During my visit to the Soviet Union I held meetings with President Gorbachev, Prime Minister Pavlov, Defence Minister Yazov and representatives of the armed forces, representatives of the Baltic states, and leading liberals.

     

    Child benefit

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister further to his oral answer of 7 March, Official Report, column 456, if he will make a further statement on the uprating of child benefit.

    The Prime Minister : I welcome the uprating of child benefit announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 19 March 1991.

     

    Research and Development

    Dr. Bray : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 12 March, Official Report, column 472, what is the estimate of total Government expenditure on research and development in enterprises with fewer than 200 employees; and what proportion of it is estimated to be for defence purposes.

    The Prime Minister : The 1989 survey of expenditure and employment on research and development (R and D) in United Kingdom industry was largely restricted to enterprises with 200 or more employees. A provisional estimate for civil and defence research and development expenditure in enterprises with fewer than 200 employees has been made of £255 million. Details are given in the notes of the Central Statistical Office’s “Business Bulletin” issue 14/91, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

    The nearest grouping for which firm data, disaggregated into civil and defence R and D, exists is that with 200 to 499 employees for which the proportion of expenditure for defence purposes is 2.4 per cent.

     

    President Bush

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the matters discussed during his meeting with President Bush in Bermuda on 16 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 March at column 193.

     

    Prime Minister, Tuvalu

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he met the Prime Minister of Tuvalu during his visit to London on 19 March.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what response he is making to the request for assistance in the establishment of a South Pacific disaster relief programme to respond to natural catastrophes, set out by the Prime Minister of Tuvalu.

    The Prime Minister : This issue was not raised by the Prime Minister of Tuvalu when he saw the Minister for Overseas Development on 18 March. However, we are always ready to respond to the need for disaster relief assistance whether in the Pacific or elsewhere.

     

    Gulf War

    Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what information he has concerning the extent of damage to sewerage systems, water purification plants, hospitals and medical centres in (a) Iraq and (b) Kuwait arising from military action in the Gulf war; and what steps have been taken by Her Majesty’s Government to provide humanitarian aid to each country to alleviate hardship and disease caused by military action.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on 21 March on Under Secretary-General Ahtisaari’s findings following his mission to Iraq.

    Ahtisaari reported that sewage systems, water purification plants, hospitals and medical centres are largely undamaged but are not functioning fully due to a lack of electricity and fuel. The United Nations sanctions committee is considering how to respond urgently. Although Kuwait suffered widespread damage and sabotage to its infrastructure as a result of the Iraqi invasion and occupation, the Government of Kuwait have already started to organise repairs and have made arrangements to provide purified drinking water. Medical facilities were relatively undamaged and are continuing to operate. The United Kingdom supports the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations relief agencies in Iraq and Kuwait. This year we have already given £2.5 million to the ICRC’s Gulf appeal (the largest single cash donation) and US$1 million to the United Nations appeal co-ordinated by United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation. In addition, the EC Commission has given £8.75 million to support the relief activities in the Gulf region. The share of this attributable to the United Kingdom’s aid budget is £1.75 million.

    Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives have been taken by Her Majesty’s Government’s representatives to (a) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (b) the United Nations environment programme, (c) the International Atomic Energy Agency, (d) the International Energy Agency, (e) the World Health Organisation, (f) the International Labour Organisation, (g) the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, (h) the European Commission and (i) the United Nations, respectively, to alleviate hardship caused to civilians in Iraq and Kuwait caused by the Gulf war.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1991] : The International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations relief agencies are the main international organisations providing assistance to civilians in Iraq and Kuwait. A multi-agency UN mission has just returned from Iraq where it has assessed the needs of the civilian population and will shortly be visiting Kuwait. Representatives of British non- governmental organisations, Oxfam and Save the Children Fund, just back from Baghdad, are also planning relief activities. UNEP is helping to tackle the effects of oil pollution in the Gulf. The EC Commission has given £8.75 million to support relief activities in the Gulf region. The share of this attributable to the United Kingdom’s aid budget is £1.75 million.

    We are not aware that the other organisations mentioned are currently providing assistance to civilians in Iraq and Kuwait.

    Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has had with the director of the World Health Organisation concerning disease and epidemics in Iraqi cities arising from destruction of sewage and water purification plants, and electricity generating stations, by allied bombing in the Gulf war.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1991] : We are in close touch with United Nations agencies including the World Health Organisation and the International Committee of the Red Cross about requirements for humanitarian assistance in Iraq.

    Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 12 March, Official Report, column 472, he will make it his policy to make a one-off extra donation to the United Nations children’s organisation, UNICEF, from the United Kingdom to help children in Iraq suffering as a result of the destruction of the economic infrastructure in Iraq from allied bombings.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1991] : A multi-agency United Nations mission has recently been in Iraq to assess humanitarian needs. It will make recommendations to the Secretary-General on emergency actions the United Nations might take. In the light of the mission’s report we will consider what response to make to any appeal for funding launched by the Secretary-General, including what would be the most appropriate channel.

     

    Middle East

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the United States Government on the prospective role of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in a peace settlement in the middle east.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1991] : We are in regular contact with the United States Administration on all aspects of the Arab/Israel dispute, including the position of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The PLO has done little to enhance its role in recent months.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for 10 Downing Street library a copy of the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation report on trade with Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1991] : No.

     

    Food Chain

    Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a single department of state to supervise matters relating to the food chain from farm to plate.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 March 1991] : No. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food already performs this function, sharing responsibility for food safety with the Department of Health.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Iraq – 16 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made regarding on Iraq on Saturday 16th March 1991 in Bermuda.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the ceasefire resolution].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A number of other people, of course, will need to be consulted, will need to be concerned about it, but we think it will cover a number of things. It will cover, for example, an arms embargo to Iraq; it will probably cover the destruction of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that Iraq has; it will certainly cover the release of Kuwaiti detainees; and I suspect it may well also cover hypothecation of oil revenues in order to meet reparations.

    Those are the sort of things that I would expect to be in the resolution, but there will be more than that, it will be a lengthy resolution.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how such an agreement would be enforced].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will be part of the ceasefire resolution, it will be a United Nations resolution. There will be sanctions imposed if it isn’t honoured.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 March 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    The Gulf

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty’s Government have made any assessment of the number of (a) Iraqi military, (b) Kuwaitis, (c) Palestinians and (d) other nationals who were killed by Allied forces on the Kuwait to Basra road in the retreating convoy before a ceasefire was declared.

    The Prime Minister : Allied forces had instructions to attack retreating Iraqi units which could continue to pose a threat. We have no information on casualties sustained in these attacks.

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects all prisoners of war held in (a) Iraq and (b) the United Kingdom to be released.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1991] : Further coalition prisoners of war were handed over to the International Committee of the Red Cross yesterday and we hope that all Kuwaiti and third-country nationals will be released as soon as possible. Arrangements are being made with the International Committee of the Red Cross for those Iraqis being held in the United Kingdom to be released as soon as possible.

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration Her Majesty’s Government gave to securing the release of prisoners of war before agreeing to a ceasefire in the Gulf conflict.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1991] : Allied offensive operations in the Gulf are currently suspended. The release of all prisoners of war remains a top priority before a formal ceasefire is declared. In adopting resolution 686, the United Nations Security Council has called on Iraq immediately to arrange access to and release of all prisoners of war and detainees, under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 7 March.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Missile Technology Control Regime

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on the commitment to be sought from Iraq to destroy its ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, Official Report, 28 February, column 1117, if he will make available to the United Nations appropriate resources and technical expertise to permit the supervision to which he refers.

    The Prime Minister : We are considering what type of international supervision would be necessary for the destruction of such weapons. We would be willing to consider making available appropriate resources and technical expertise if necessary.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his statement of 28 February, Official Report, column 1117, he will make it his policy to give consideration to inviting Iraq to join the missile technology control regime.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to do so.

     

    Immigrant Workers, Kuwait

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty’s Government intend to take to alleviate economic hardship of immigrant workers in Kuwait made redundant by the Gulf war.

    The Prime Minister : British nationals returning to the United Kingdom from Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion were eligible to receive travel grants and loans, and where appropriate, other assistance from the Department of Social Security. Assistance for those returning to their homes in other countries is a matter for their own Governments.

     

    Gulf Casualties

    Mr. Ashley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister, with special responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of essentials services to service personnel disabled in the Gulf including counselling, psychiatric care, rehabilitation, social services, jobs and adapted housing.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1991] : No. There are well-established arrangements for providing advice and assistance to personnel disabled in the course of their military service.

     

    Economic and Political Union

    Mr. Cash : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress on the intergovernmental conferences on (a) economic and monetary union and (b) political union; and if he will make it his policy to place the submissions made by each member state or the European Commission on (a) and (b) in the Library within one week of their being available to Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1991] : My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported to the House on 1 March on progress in the EMU intergovernmental conference, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House yesterday on the progress in the political union intergovernmental conference. The proceedings and documents of these conferences are confidential as was the case for the intergovernmental conference that resulted in the Single European Act.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Colvin : The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being the first allied leader to visit the Gulf since the successful cessation of hostilities. When he spoke to our forces there, he spoke for the whole nation. Can he now tell the House when we can expect our forces home so that we may give them the heroes’ welcome that they deserve? Does he agree that it might not be a bad idea to send out to the Gulf 10 builders to assist with the reconstruction of Kuwait for every service man and service woman whom we welcome home?

    The Prime Minister : I can assure my hon. Friends that we are making plans for an appropriate welcome home when the majority of our troops are back. We hope to announce details of that quite soon. I am sure that the House will be pleased to have the excellent news that our forces will start to return home this weekend. The first to come back will be medical reservists, including 205 general hospital, which is returning to Glasgow. The first Tornados, their crews and support staff will also be starting for home in a few days’ time. Some ships are already on their way home. The House will be especially pleased to know that 7th Armoured Brigade, which has been in the desert under the command of Brigadier Cordingley since last October, will begin to leave early next week and we hope that its withdrawal can be completed in two weeks or so. That brigade includes one of the Scottish regiments in the Gulf–the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will publish details later this afternoon.

    Mr. Hattersley : I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his visit to the Gulf yesterday, but may I now ask him to turn his mind to domestic politics? Why is Britain the only western European economy in which manufacturing exports are falling, manufacturing output is falling, manufacturing investment is falling and manufacturing employment is falling, all at the same time?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but less so for the rest. As the right hon. Gentleman knows–but, alas, neglected to mention–the United States and Canada are in recession and growth is slowing in France, Italy and a number of other major economies. In our own economy, inflation is falling and interest rates are beginning to fall. The effects of our policies are beginning to be felt benevolently.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Prime Minister has not even attempted to answer my question. He will not be able to run away from these issues for ever. As he has failed to attempt an answer, I offer him the answer provided to my question by the House of Lords yesterday–that the problem for British manufacturing industry is doctrinaire Government policies and incompetent Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should read the report more carefully. If he does so, he will find a number of recommendations welcoming actions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has taken in recent months. They have advanced further since their report’s publication and include, for example, the doubling of support for technology transfer and extra support for smaller firms. The right hon. Gentleman should be less selective and more accurate.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Prime Minister must know that the two criticisms that I quoted are exactly the view of the House of Lords. I have no doubt that even the least literate members of the other place will regard the Prime Minister’s answer as a bogus sham.

    The Prime Minister : I had not expected to find such a literate right hon. Gentleman guilty of such tautology. The policies that we have followed are those which assist success in all sectors of the enterprise economy. The right hon. Gentleman forgets the reductions in inflation, on which his party had no policy, the change to one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the world, when his party would raise taxation, and a labour market surplus which has given this country the lowest number of days lost in strikes for 50 years.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a start cannot even begin to be made to bringing Iraq back into the peace-loving family of nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power in Baghdad?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. As I said in the House last week, and am happy to repeat, I believe that Iraq will remain a pariah among nations while Saddam Hussein is there and rules it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Leadbitter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Leadbitter : Will the Prime Minister now turn to some specifics of the highly critical report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was published this week? Is he aware that the report makes it clear that there has been no support for industry from the Government’s policies? The report concludes that there is a grave risk of having no British owned and based manufacturing industry as a result of present policies. Does the Prime Minister agree with the final conclusion in the report–that the Government’s policies show no commitment to industry and no commitment to the national interest?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why manufacturing productivity grew faster in this country in the past decade than in almost any other major industrialised country. As the hon. Gentleman should know, a great deal of the ground lost in previous decades has been made up. We still need to be better at implementing the scientific discoveries made in this country and we are determined to improve on that.

    Mr. Jessel : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the victory parade will include British Army bands trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall in Twickenham?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard my hon. Friend, even if my right hon. Friend is not at the House.

     

    Q3. Mr. Archy Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Kirkwood : I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent visit to the Gulf. Now that he has been able to see for himself the ecological consequences of the Gulf war, does he agree that it is necessary to mount an ecological task force almost on the same scale as the military task force that was needed to liberate Kuwait in order to deal with those consequences? Will he do what he can to ensure that the United Nations takes an international initiative to deal quickly with the pollution in the Gulf?

    The Prime Minister : The action necessary to cure the pollution in the Gulf will require an international effort. Quite how that will be organised is a matter which is still open. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a cash donation yesterday towards clearance of the pollution.

    Mr. Oppenheim : Bearing in mind the Government’s economic policy and the fact that some people claim that credit controls represent a painless cure for inflation, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on where, under such a system, home buyers might come in the queue for credit, and how, in any case, such a system could be effective without the reimposition of exchange controls?

    The Prime Minister : It is extremely unlikely that credit controls could make any worthwhile contribution to economic management. They are a legacy of the sort of economic management that existed in the 1950s, to which the Opposition seem keen to return.

     

    Unemployment (Scotland)

    Q4. Mr. Tom Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss unemployment in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : I have at present no plans to do so.

    Mr. Clarke : Does the Prime Minister recall that during his last brief visit to Edinburgh he said that he would not forget Lanarkshire? Given the huge job losses that we have seen since then, including 3,000 in the steel industry, is not the Prime Minister appalled at the stage of employment training in Lanarkshire? Do a 32 per cent. reduction in funding, trainer job losses and lost trainee places, including places for those with special needs, represent the Government’s commitment? Will the Prime Minister, tomorrow, meet real people with real problems or will his visit to Lanarkshire be simply a public relations charade?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Lanarkshire working group has been set up to co-ordinate action to tackle the problems facing Lanarkshire on the back of the steel job losses that have occurred. The working group met for the first time on 11 January and will report to me around the end of April.

    Mr. Teddy Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that the admittedly serious problems in Lanarkshire and elsewhere in Scotland would become much worse if the House of Commons were daft enough to accept the Labour party’s proposal for an elected assembly with tax-raising powers? Does he agree that such an arrangement would simply scare jobs away from Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : I am in no doubt about that. Were Scotland to have a tax-raising assembly, it would undoubtedly become the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. That, in turn, would drive away the investment which in the last decade has increasingly made Scotland more efficient, effective and wealthy.

     

    Official Visits

    Q5. Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Nottingham.

    The Prime Minister : I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Nottingham among them.

    Mr. Allen : The right hon. Gentleman will be very welcome. When he comes, will he make a point of meeting mothers and children who have been robbed of £2.30 per week by the Government’s failure to link child benefit to inflation? Arising from the deceitful words in the Conservative manifesto, which said

    “Child benefit will continue to be paid as now”,

    will the Prime Minister, first, answer a question–something he has not done so far today–and, secondly, will he tell the House, and mothers at home– [Interruption.] May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

    Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is making rather a meal of it.

    Mr. Allen : Will the Prime Minister tell mothers at home of his own complicity in the drafting of those very words in the 1987 manifesto–words which cheated mothers and their children?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have an obligation to review child benefit annually, and do so. On each occasion that child benefit has not been fully uprated, those on the lowest incomes have been fully compensated or more through other social security benefits.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that under his outstanding leadership we have become a united party determined to defeat inflation and the Labour party when the general election comes? Does he approve of all of us on this side of the House paying our community charge, supporting the prevention of terrorism Act and supporting our troops in the Gulf? If so, is that not in stark contrast with that lot on the other side who are busy scheming to remove their leader and his deputy through supper clubs– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that that is enough.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly hope to be in sharp contrast with Opposition Members on many issues. I am delighted to see that normal service has now been resumed.

  • Mr Major’s Address to the Divisional Artillery in Kuwait – 6 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s address to the Divisional Artillery in Kuwait on Wednesday 6th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wanted to come out here today, having seen what things were like at the beginning of January, to say just two or three things to you. Firstly, it was a fabulous job, I do not believe it could have been done better and the general view at home is that this was a copy book war from start to finish, the planning, the logistics, the execution of it, all of it went as well as we could possibly have hoped and there are 50 odd million people at home who have been watching every tiny movement in this over the last few months, there are more experts on the Gulf out there back home than there are out here. You may be surprised to know that but I can promise you it is the case, it has been almost the sole topic of conversation for weeks past, what is happening, what is going to happen, how are the boys doing, when are they going to come home? Those are the questions, of course some of those of no interest whatsoever to you, that have dominated conversation back home.

    But would like to say to you that the support back home for what you have been doing has been absolutely unbelievable and when you get home you will feel that and you will know it without a shadow of doubt because people are pretty proud of what you did over here and I do not just mean the British, if you go to the United States at the moment as well you will find they are pretty proud of what you have done as well. So I am delighted to be here in order to say thank you to you all.

    You may be interested to know about going home and one or two miscellaneous matters like that. I cannot give you an exact date for that, I can give you a promise that we will not keep you out here a day longer than is necessary and we are actually working now on the logistics of when differing people can go home. There is a certain amount to be done but as soon as we can send you home we will and as soon as you get home there will be some leave which I daresay you will find something to do with, I am sure that will be the case.

    One other point you may be interest in, though it is not for public consumption yet and I know the press will honour that for the time being, a number of our prisoners of war are released today, quite a few, there is some rather good news there, perhaps more than we imagined were alive and we should have them back in our hands with a bit of luck later on today, so that is extremely good news.

    I see looking round that you are souvenir hunters, I do not know quite what you are going to do with them all but I think one or two of those tanks will be of some use when we get them back home, we can either strip them down and see what they look like or perhaps they will make good target practice, whatever. But well done on the souvenirs, well done on the battle.

    I guess many of you may wonder what it was all about, why were you here, was it necessary? I just want to say to you that it was necessary and you were here not just because of the invasion of Kuwait, important though that was, but if you had not been here with your allies, if this problem of Kuwait had not been sorted out now, then it might have been a much bigger and much more dangerous problem not very many years away. That would have been perhaps a much more difficult problem to deal with, it was necessary to deal with it now and I do not think it could have been better dealt with than the way you have done it. So thank you very much indeed.

    There is no more to say except that a thank you from me is not just from me, it is from everybody back home who would be delighted to come here and say it themselves. Many thanks indeed, you did magnificently, thank you.